healthetank

In any practical sense (ie with the base assumption there is something to be gained), it doesn't make sense to celebrate Canada electing liberal over cons. Carney has been outspoken from the start, which is largely what made the polls swing SO heavily! He was unequivocal that Canada was not going to bend over for the US, while PP avoided and danced around the question. Had PP rallied behind his "Canada First" slogan and pushed hard against the US as soon as trump began talking, I'm afraid it wouldn't have been such a clear Liberal win.

So beyond being egotistical and happy he can cause such changes in foreign patterns, I don't see how libs benefit him over cons.

I'd argue that the liberals getting 43% of the vote while scoring as well as they did is largely a function of strategic voting by NDP voters who refused to have a conservative govt. Strategic voting definitely contributed to their low % compared to the number of seats they got - I didn't vote for them in my riding because my region has been con since the 60s. If it had been close, I probably would've considered it.

Worth mentioning I'm a staunch supporter of single vote MMPR, but in ranked choice their "% of votes" would've been higher than it currently is. Those additional votes would still be entirely valid votes, though they are a second choice vote.

Their proposed plans for actually addressing it tend to be, in my estimation, relatively incoherent, ranging from weak to naive to implausible.

This was the first part I felt strongly that I disagreed with. Did you read the platforms the parties prepared? Liberals was lackluster with few concrete numbers or stats. I couldn't even find a solid platform on the NDPs website, just links to their various proposed initiatives, though at least they provided a costed estimate for their plans, unlike the other two main ones. The conservative 'platform' was a ridiculous mix of 'blank the blank' slogans and attacks against the liberals with very very few ideas and even fewer concrete steps for how to achieve it.

The green platform was the only one I read that had concrete numbers (ie proposed wealth tax of X% for Xmillion, y% for Ymillion, etc) and explained their goals without restorting to attack ads. I get its probably not something 90% of voters look at, but fuck people, come on. Their posted platform should be the thing they are held to and asked about, and the less people look at them, the easier it is for parties to avoid posting them or posting bland, non-concrete things they can then weasel out of later.

Our last government was a minority and made it the full 4 years

Ontario has been extremely stingy on paying out their share of the fees (Program is part funded by federal, rest by provincial), leading to most daycare centres still not registering for the full reduction to $10/day. But most are still reducing their prices from what they were at previously.

Are you forgetting the "police stations" China established here recently? Those are not actions of a foreign government respecting our sovereignity or of a government defending itself against the US's attacks. That is the action of a foreign power intent on ignoring our borders and laws to enforce their own ideologies.

"There is a move in the county council to try and put forth a letter or resolution stating that we support Canadians coming. We want you to come. We want to make you feel welcome,"

Lol not gonna lie, a letter stating "Please come spend your money here!" while ICE can go where they want and do what they want with 0 repercussions? Like hell am I going to the states, blue or red. Sort out your shit and don't ask me to put myself in danger because your countrymen elected an aggressive idiot

And, critically, it supersedes the hot issue of the day, meaning in theory it prevents "ends justify the means" approach even with explicit approval from the population.

I agree- we need more midrise buildings throughout.

IMO Canada's problem isnt one of feasibility but of desire. By and large, people dont WANT midrise apartment buildings. The vast majority of people want the white picket fence dream in a subdivision and two cars. I think the govt needs to get back into building housing on both the federal and provincial level, not just leaving it up to the upper tier municipalities. The housing that IS built by those municipalities typically is exactly what you're requesting - less car centric, cheaper, midrise buildings. They just don't build enough of them. If we can make enough of those buildings by the govt (who can ignore the low profitability of those builds), maybe we can make them desirable enough that people change their mind about suburbia. At the very least, providing apartments meant for a full family would be a huge step forwards compared to the current offerings.

I haven't heard any arguments that maintaining property values is a bottleneck preventing more buildings. How does that make sense?

I've heard that policies that crater home values can't be chased (ie increased taxes on selling property, or other tax disincentives for houses to be so expensive or a vehicle for investments) but even those proposals don't actually address the root problem of not enough homes.

Literally none of the "build more houses" they've attempted so far has succeeded on provincial, municipal, or federal levels. We have significant bottlenecks that cannot be addressed in any short period of time, so limiting the incoming strain into the system WHILE also building more houses is the only realistic path.

But it's totally Musk's company, and he's super efficient, so his company is OBVIOUSLY sitting on millions of dollars of rebates from months of sales without collecting. That's peak efficiency.

I find it hard to believe that they had THIS much of a backlog. The article says only 1400 Canadian employees - thats a lot of money for a subsidiary that small, and means, on average, there was 7 backlogged cars for each employee.